I absolutely value my property over the life of whoever tries to take my property, and would feel perfectly justified shooting someone who steals from me and tries to escape with the stolen property.
On the other hand, in this particular case I feel a lot more iffy considering the situation with the ‘escort’ services and the payment. I don’t know the details and I’m not going to go looking, but with what I know at the time I’m not certain I feel confident voicing either support or outrage at the verdict. I’ll just say that if I were on that jury, it is not implausible that I would vote either to convict or acquit, depending on the specifics of the circumstance as presented at trial.
Obviously the people actually on the jury felt it was appropriate to acquit, and I’m not really going to second-guess that decision based on the information I currently have because I don’t feel this case is clear in one way or the other.
“Any money exchanged is strictly for my time and companionship. Anything else that may occur is between two consenting adults.” :rolleyes:
“No law enforcement please.” :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Give me a fucking break on the whole “escort” isn’t a “prostitute” nonsense. It’s all just semantics. They’re all hookers.
We don’t know that. He could be diabetic and needed to buy insulin with the money that he thought he was spending on sex. Obviously the getaway car he was shooting at was equipped with monster truck tires, which explains how he managed to accidentally shoot a passenger in the neck. He ran a real risk of injury from ricocheting bullets.
It’s a miracle that everything worked out for the best. Someone has a guardian angel watching over him!
And he’s a “john”. The difference is that people don’t think that hookers have a right to kill johns, but they do think that johns have the right to kill hookers. Both of them are criminals; it’s just that hookers have for centuries been culturally sanctioned as victims that you can do anything to from rape to murder.
I wonder how these people who think killing her is just fine would have reacted if she’d shot and killed him for not paying. Suddenly it wouldn’t be a justified kill anymore I expect.
Isn’t it interesting that we live in a country where the law (and much of it’s citizenry) approves of killing a woman over $150 but won’t kill a man who slaughtered 16 defenseless people, including 9 children?
That’s a good point, and I’m pretty sure you’re right. Women who are sex workers are often not even referred to as “women”, but as “prostitutes” or “hookers” or “strippers” or somesuch - even in this thread. It’s as if their humanity has been stripped and they’re defined by their source of income.
But, as others have pointed out, the jury is not necessarily to be faulted. Given the facts of the case and the way the law stands there may have been no option to convict, which is why I just don’t understand how this law came into being. Though I expect it doesn’t happen often, it provides a legal way to kill somebody who poses no harm whatsoever. An earlier poster mentioned a case where a person repossessing a car had been lawfully killed. I don’t know the details, but this is what I mean about putting property above life - apparently that man had a legal right to the car, yet because the “owner” thought he didn’t, he killed him. So the man died for doing his job. (Actually in writing this it occurs to me that this can’t be right - I haven’t been able to find any details, but there must be mitigating circumstances.)
You mean physical harm, right? Generally speaking most people feel as though they’ve been harmed when something is stolen. There was a time in my life when having my car stolen would have put me in some dire financial straights and seriously affected my livelihood. I had liability insurance only, no savings with which to purchase a used automobile, and no access to public transportation or people I could depend on to get me to work. The idea that thieves harm none is just plain false.
Jeesh. That is what six years of lawyer training will do for you. It can’t be easy, when you’re reasonably intelligent, to go on record, pretend all appropriate responses don’t exist, and phrase that in the form of a Cowboy Speak Oneliner. I bet that lawyer had a real long shower when he came home to stop feeling dirty.
The guy in this outrageous case could have:
gone outside and reasoned with the repo man
called the cops if he thought something illegal was going on
if he didn’t trust the cops to arrive in time, he could have stayed indoors, made pictures of the man taking his car, pictures of his licencing plate.
And you say,** Odesio**, such harsh laws will act as a deterrent to thieves? You’re factually wrong.
Here’s the US crame rate by state from 2011. Robbery rates per 100K inhabitants are 110 in Texas, which is one of the highest of the mostly rural states. Arkansas’s is 82.
The US averate rate of burglary is 724. Texas has 967, so, considerably higher then average. But…Texas’ neighbouring states also have very high rates of burglary. Higher then Texas. New Mexico has 1117, Arkansas 1224, Oklahoma 1044. But the northern neighbours, Colorado, have the low number of 532.
That same factsheet shows that car theft follows the same pattern as burglary. Texas and the states around it have much higher crime rates then the US average, but Texas has the lowest of the three.
So, what is going on probably is a lot more complex then just the Cowboy Truth of: “Shootin horse thieves will stop them!”. Maybe it is extra police attention to property crimes. Maybe the Texas laws do work as deterrent and all the burglars go and burgle homes one state over. I don’t know.
Let’s keep in mind that in this particular case, the man had willingly given her the money. His complaint was that she wouldn’t have sex with him afterwards or give him his money back. Presumably, if she had given the guy his blowjob there wouldn’t have been any shooting. So it’s a little hard to argue here that the man was being greatly harmed by the loss of $150 when he initially parted with it voluntarily.
I understand, Little Nemo, but bear in mind that we’ve gone from talking about this specific case to talking about the law in general. And generally speaking we don’t write our laws based on one specific scenario. I don’t know all the facts of the case but I’m a bit surprised that this guy wasn’t convicted of something. For all I know the prosecution really dropped the ball on this one. It happens.
[ul]
[li]Are you feeling Second Amendment Righteous?[/li][li]Tired of plinking boring paper targets and cans?[/li][li]Turned down for the police academy due to chronic hemorrhoids and an unfavorable psych profile?[/li][li]Ready to FULLFILL THE DREAM and shoot some REAL FLESH AND BLOOD?[/li][/ul]
Well NOW YOU CAN… and it’s EASIER THAN EVER!
Recent improvements to our legal system have made it **EASY **and **SAFE **
for you to put YOUR BULLETS into a bad guy and walk away SCOT-FREE!
[ul]
[li]Coming right at you?[/li][li]Fleeing in terror?[/li][li]Lying prone on top of your cheating wife?[/li][/ul]
IT DOESN’T MATTER!
With today’s sensible STAND YOUR GROUND laws, you have the God-given LEGAL RIGHT
to SHOOT FIRST and THINK LATER!
And the best part is…
(sotto voce) they don’t really even have to be that bad! You just have to say you THOUGHT they were!
So stock up on ammo, gunslingers… Hunting season is OPEN!
YEEEEE-HAWWWW!!!
Paid for by the Patriot’s Foundation for the Defense of Liberty, which is totally not connected at all to the National Rifle Association. Nuh-uh, no way! Wink!
He should have been charged and found guilty of something along the lines of grievous bodily harm and a bunch of other crimes. I do not think he should have been found guilty of murder because the shooting was only the first in the chain of events that lead to her death.
It may not have much to do with the legal issues here, but myself, I honestly think that she may not have been a prostitute and that the man may not have been a pimp. It sounds to me more like they were con artists making money off of people’s assumptions that escorts are prostitutes. If she were truly a prostitute, why would she have refused the act? She’d want repeat customers, after all.
IANAL but it sounds like the problem here was the type of charges brought by the prosecutor.
So my question for the lawyers on this board is; couldn’t the prosecutor have given the jury a choice of both murder and manslaughter, and possibly other charges? Is this a matter of state laws? Does Texas not allow this, at least in some cases?
If we take those definitions to include not doing the thing that you said you would do, or even not intending to do the thing that you said you would do, then does that mean Texas lumps all willful misrepresentation under simple theft? Which can justify killing, no less? I could see that getting messy! (Also, does someone’s intentions fall under “fact” at all?)
This sort of situation struck me as falling under unjust enrichment (the category Czarcasm missed), not theft. Why wouldn’t it?